Time limit (108, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 433, 771, 772, 773, 774, 775, 776, 777, 778, 781,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Time limit
Total judgments found: 335
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 | next >
Judgment 1392
78th Session, 1995
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 24
Extract:
"The appeal procedure set forth in the Service Regulations is, to quote Article 106, an individual appeals system. Such too is the basic feature of the system of appeal embodied in Article II of the Statute of the Tribunal, though it is subject to the provision in Article VII(2) setting a special time limit for appeal against any decision affecting a 'class of officials', which runs from the date of issue. So it is only by virtue of an individual contract of employment with the organisation that someone may lodge a complaint and the complainant may not alter the nature of the suit by declaring when he files the complaint that he is doing so as a staff union representative."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE II AND ARTICLE VII(2) OF THE STATUTE
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 106 OF THE EPO SERVICE REGULATIONS
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; complainant; complaint; general decision; iloat statute; internal appeal; locus standi; publication; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; staff representative; start of time limit; time limit; tribunal;
Judgment 1380
78th Session, 1995
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
The complainant says that "the administration failed to observe the time limit of sixty days when it replied to the Joint Appeals Board on [two appeals she had lodged], in breach of Rule 112.02(b)(ii). This provision has no application to the organization's reply in the internal appeals procedure: the time limit of sixty days applies to the Director-General's reply to a written request under Rule 112.02(a) for review of an administrative decision."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: STAFF RULE 112.02
Keywords:
due process; internal appeal; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; staff regulations and rules; time limit;
Judgment 1376
77th Session, 1994
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
The purpose of Headquarters Board of Appeal's rules of procedure is "to promote the expeditious and orderly hearing of appeals, not to deprive appellants of any right of appeal conferred on them by the Staff Rules."
Keywords:
due process; internal appeal; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; purpose; right of appeal; staff member's interest; staff regulations and rules; time limit;
Consideration 13
Extract:
"According to the case law - see for example Judgment 607 [...] under 8 - though the rules on internal appeals must be respected because proper administration so requires, 'they are not supposed to be a trap or a means of catching out a staff member who acts in good faith'."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 607
Keywords:
case law; good faith; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; organisation's duties; organisation's interest; right of appeal; staff member's interest; time limit;
Judgment 1374
77th Session, 1994
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"Even if the reduction-in-force procedure had been properly carried out the letters [which the PAHO sent the complainants] did not give valid notice of termination. They gave the complainants only just over one month's notice [...], not the three months to which they were entitled under Rule 1050.3. For that reason too the complainants' contracts must be deemed to have been extended by implication."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: PAHO STAFF RULE 1050.3
Keywords:
contract; flaw; intervention; non-renewal of contract; notice; procedure before the tribunal; reinstatement; staff reduction; staff regulations and rules; time limit;
Judgment 1367
77th Session, 1994
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 11 and 16
Extract:
"The dispute is about the time in which a staff member of WHO may exercise his right to removal of his household effects at the organization's expense upon retirement. [...] The Director-General's decision is arbitrary, not just because it fails to state the reasons for choosing the [...] new deadline for the refund of the costs of removal, but because it gives no consistent reply to the complainant's claim. It is a wrong exercise of discretion."
Keywords:
bias; breach; decision; discretion; duty to substantiate decision; limits; refund; removal expenses; time limit;
Judgment 1366
77th Session, 1994
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 13-14
Extract:
The complainant's education grant gave rise to an overpayment. He pleads that there is a time limit for the recovery of overpayments. The UPU observes that "any payment made in error may be recovered" but it has nevertheless waived some of the sum due. "In the circumstances the time limit the union has set is much to the complainant's advantage and his plea under this head therefore fails."
Keywords:
amount; education expenses; recovery of overpayment; refund; time bar; time limit; unjust enrichment;
Judgment 1362
77th Session, 1994
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"[T]he Tribunal must rule yet again on WIPO's refusal to discharge the obligation to decide on reinstatement. As it has stated more than once, its judgments are to be given immediate effect. In the regrettable event that the Organization continues to disregard that rule and fails to act within 30 days of the date of delivery of this judgment, it must pay the complainant 10,000 swiss francs by way of penalty for each further month of delay."
Keywords:
amount; application for execution; continuing breach; decision; delay; execution of judgment; general principle; judgment of the tribunal; organisation's duties; penalty for delay; refusal; reinstatement; res judicata; time limit;
Judgment 1338
77th Session, 1994
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 11-12
Extract:
"An organisation must, where a specific sum has been awarded [by the Tribunal], pay compensation if it takes more than one month to pay after the judgment was notified, save that if, as in Judgment 1219, the Tribunal does not put a figure on the amount due, the need to work out the figure warrants allowing additional time. In this instance [...] apart from alleging the need for consultations the Organization has offered no explanation for the delay in payment. The Tribunal therefore awards the complainant payment of interest".
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1219
Keywords:
administrative delay; amount; application for execution; delay; execution of judgment; formal demand for payment; interest on damages; judgment of the tribunal; organisation's duties; payment; penalty for delay; res judicata; time limit;
Judgment 1305
76th Session, 1994
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 18-19
Extract:
The complainant is unable to provide any proof of the date on which he says he filed his complaint with the Tribunal. "The Tribunal observes that its Rules of Court are liberal in that for the purpose of reckoning the time limit Article 6(3) [*] takes the date of dispatch and thereby relieves the complainant of liability for any faulty transmittal after dispatch. "That makes it the more important to establish the date of dispatch beyond doubt in each case. [...] The complainant has failed to adduce any evidence of the dispatch of his complaint. [...] Although the Tribunal does not question the sincerity of the complainant [...] it cannot treat [his] assertions as if they were objective evidence: if it did so it would be affording an opportunity for fraudulent evasion of time limits."
*superseded by Article 4(2) of the Tribunal's Rules as in force since 1 May 1994
Keywords:
complaint; date; evidence; formal requirements; iloat statute; lack of evidence; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 1304
76th Session, 1994
World Tourism Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The parties differ as to which decision set off the time limit for internal appeal. The complainant relies on negotiations which took place following an initial decision of the Secretary-General's. Those negotiations, intended to reach a settlement, ended in a second decision of the Secretary-General's to refuse to negotiate any further. The Tribunal holds that the complainant's "further action [...] and any proposals that may have been made to him did not cause the organization at any time to go back on the final decision which it had taken [...] [the subsequent decision] did no more than confirm the earlier one and set off no new time limit for appeal."
Keywords:
complaint; confirmatory decision; decision; new time limit; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time limit;
Judgment 1280
75th Session, 1993
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 14-15
Extract:
Vide Judgment 1279, considerations 14 and 15.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1279
Keywords:
complaint; date; good faith; internal appeal; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; time limit;
Judgment 1279
75th Session, 1993
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 14-15
Extract:
Under PAHO Staff Rule 1230.7.1 no-one may appeal to the Board of Appeal until "all the existing administrative channels have been tried". The complainants advised the administration that they intended to appeal to the Board as soon as they had the assurance that they had exhausted the internal remedies. "The defendant was therefore not free in good faith to treat the complainants' internal appeals to the Board as being out of time by taking a date that made it impossible for them to satisfy the prior condition set in Rule 1230.7.1."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: PAHO STAFF RULE 1230.7.1
Keywords:
complaint; date; good faith; internal appeal; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; time limit;
Consideration 9
Extract:
"The purpose of time limits is to make for the stability in law that both sides require. Management has an interest in knowing that the decisions it takes are beyond challenge; and the staff too need to know, especially when administrative action is taken at successive stages from the general to the particular, just when they may act without fear of having their suit rejected as premature or time-barred."
Keywords:
complaint; general decision; individual decision; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 1256
75th Session, 1993
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant asked the Director-General to review his decision to reject his application for a vacant post after the expiry of the one month delay for filing of an internal appeal. He wants the Tribunal to acknowledge the exceptional character of his case as justifying an extension of the normally applicable time limit. "According to precedent a complainant may not be deemed to have exhausted the means of redress at his disposal within the organisation unless he has followed the prescribed internal procedure for appeal and in particular observed the time limits. So if his internal appeal was out of time his complaint to this Tribunal will also be irreceivable under Article VII(1)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(1) OF THE STATUTE
Organization rules reference: UPU STAFF RULE 111.3
Keywords:
case law; complaint; exception; iloat statute; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; time bar; time limit;
Consideration 6
Extract:
To escape the time bar the complainant relies on UPU Staff Rule 111.3.4, which allows the Joint Appeals Committee to waive the time limit in exceptional circumstances. "As the Union observes, the time limit which the Committee may waive is not the one in 111.3.1 - the one month for submitting a request for review to the Director-General - but only the one for appeal to the Committee against the decision rejecting such request." The complaint is therefore irreceivable.
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: UPU STAFF RULE 111.3
Keywords:
case law; complaint; exception; iloat statute; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 1247
74th Session, 1993
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"As the Tribunal has held, for example in Judgment 607 [...], though proper administration requires the setting of time limits 'they are not supposed to be a trap or a means of catching out a staff member who acts in good faith'."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 607
Keywords:
case law; complainant; good faith; internal appeal; internal appeals body; organisation's interest; time limit;
Judgment 1243
74th Session, 1993
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 16
Extract:
"According to the case law, where a complainant does everything necessary to get a final decision but the appeal proceedings appear unlikely to end within a reasonable time, he may go to the Tribunal. Rulings to that effect are to be found, for example, in Judgments 451 and 499."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 451, 499
Keywords:
absence of final decision; administrative delay; case law; complaint; decision; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; reasonable time; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 1230
74th Session, 1993
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The defendant maintains that the complainant did not meet the two-month time limit for lodging appeals and failed to exhaust the internal means of redress. The Committee was of the view that, in this case, exceptional circumstances warranted waiving the time limit and allowing the appeal. The defendant contends that the Committee's decision was not binding on the Agency. "Only where the Committee's appraisal of the circumstances is flagrantly wrong or based on plainly mistaken facts may the Director General disregard it, and even then his decision will be subject to review by the Tribunal."
Keywords:
condition; exception; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; judicial review; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; time bar; time limit;
Consideration 3
Extract:
"The rule is that for his complaint to be receivable the staff member must not only meet the time limit in Article VII(2) of [the Tribunal's] Statute but have properly followed the internal appeal procedure."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(2) OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
condition; iloat statute; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; time limit;
Judgment 1195
73rd Session, 1992
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 4-5
Extract:
The complainant having received undue payment, the Union claimed a refund. The complainant challenges this on the grounds that "because of prescription the debt has become unenforceable. There is indeed a widely recognised principle that lapse of time may extinguish an obligation, but the difficulty here is that the Union's rules set no time limit for such extinctive prescription." However the Tribunal holds that the time between the payment of the material sums and the Union's request for their repayment "was not long enough to warrant declaring the undue payments irrecoverable. Not only is the period of extinctive prescription much longer in most national systems of law, but the complainant pleads no personal difficulty or hardship in making repayment: the Union is not claiming lump-sum reimbursement but is spreading it over eighteen months."
Keywords:
debt; domestic law; reasonable time; recovery of overpayment; refund; time limit;
Judgment 1181
73rd Session, 1992
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complaint raises a question of receivability. Under Article 43 (1) of the Staff Regulations an internal appeal must be lodged within thirty days of the date on which a decision was notified. The complainant pleads that he made a material mistake by reading the thirty days as one calendar month. "Time limits for internal appeals must be strictly complied with. The complainant failed to abide by the Staff Regulations, and the mistake he supposedly made is irrelevant because the organization did not seek to mislead him. Since he has not exhausted the internal means of redress, his complaint is irreceivable under Article VII(1) of the Tribunal's Statute."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(1) OF THE STATUTE
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 43 OF THE INTERPOL STAFF REGULATIONS
Keywords:
date of notification; delay; iloat statute; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; mandatory time limit; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 1176
73rd Session, 1992
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 15
Extract:
The Tribunal will discount "a new material fact" which the organisation supplied "too late for the complainant to be able to comment".
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; disclosure of evidence; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings; right to reply; time limit;
Considerations 6-7
Extract:
"The complainant has brought two similar complaints challenging [the same] decision. [...] He explains that since the time limit for answering his internal appeal ran out [...] he inferred rejection and filed a complaint. He then left on holiday and not until he got back - by which time his first complaint had already been filed - did he receive the letter of rejection. So it was only by way of precaution that he filed the second complaint, within the time limit, against that express decision. In the circumstances the two complaints are receivable and may be joined."
Keywords:
complaint; decision; express decision; failure to answer claim; implied decision; joinder; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 1167
73rd Session, 1992
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"All that is needed for [an] appeal to be receivable is that the impugned decision be clearly identified and the pleas set out.
Keywords:
condition; decision; internal appeal; internal appeals body; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 | next >
|
